The Question of Why

It seems that the question of "Why" is often confused with the "How".
When one asks "why", they are essentially asking what the intention or purpose of an entity, matter or thing is. However, intention or purpose is only characteristic of a volitional consciousness. One cannot ask "Why does existence exists", because existence necessarily has to exist - there simply is no other alternative. One can ask why a car was built, for it was built with intention or purpose by a volitional consciousness. To ask why a mountain is in a certain place is not a valid question, for it arose in a specific place and specific time as a result of natural processes - there is no intention behind its placement.
To ask "Why" of nature is to anthropomorphize it.

Mankind has been asking "Why" he is here for millenia upon millenia, and proceeding to derive arbitrary [and often cartoonish] answers to a baseless question. Succinctly, our presence here is explained by natural processes - particularly evolution. To ask "why" is akin to asking "why are stars, beetles or the Laws of Physics.."

Q: How does existence exists?
A: Because it CAN.

Does it seem like a play on words to you? It's not. This is no zen koan. This is no greater-than-thou "mystical" riddle. This is the intent-free, non-egocentric answer that effectively negates the silliest question ever asked.

Post 1

Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 9:00am

From the earliest time in a child's life the question of why is constantly issuing from their mouth, *why* then should it be any more silly that his questioning nature should expand outward as we grow older to encompass the universe and the many figments of imagination that go along with man's ability to ponder.

It may indeed be fruitless in many circumstances, and even harmful when what is perceived as truth is forced on others, but to say it is silly is to do a great disservice to the many intelligent human who have every asked the question.

Post 2

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 4:56pm

"Why" isn't only relevant in matters of intention or purpose.

Everyone asks "Why is sky blue" and only the most extreme animists among us think the sky is intending to be blue. "Why" can also mean "by what cause"?

Which brings to "What caused the universe to exist?" And you are dodging the question if you rephrase it "Why does existence exist"? The question is "Why are there any things in existence? Why matter? energy? space? time?"

Post 3

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 11:43pm

Craig wrote,

Why" isn't only relevant in matters of intention or purpose.

Everyone asks "Why is sky blue" and only the most extreme animists among us think the sky is intending to be blue. "Why" can also mean "by what cause"?

I once had a physics teacher who explained to us why the sky is blue, using the following analogy. He said that if a beam of a particular frequency of sound is directed to a tuning fork of a similar frequency, the tuning fork will vibrate and scatter the sound in various directions. Similarly, atoms and molecules behave like tiny optical tuning forks and scatter light waves of certain frequencies. The nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the atmosphere vibrate or "ring" with high frequencies when energized by sunlight, which then scatters the light in a blue wavelength.

Which brings to "What caused the universe to exist?" And you are dodging the question if you rephrase it "Why does existence exist"? The question is "Why are there any things in existence? Why matter? energy? space? time?"

But it's the same question, isn't it? The question, "Why does existence exist" is the same as the question, "Why are there any things in existence?" A thing is an existent. The question is, therefore, nonsensical, because causality presupposes existence; existence does not presuppose causality. When you ask, "Why are there any things in existence?," you're asking, "What things - what existents - caused existence? - which makes no sense, because in order for something to cause existence, it would have to exist before anything existed, which is a contradiction in terms.

- Bill

Post 4

Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 7:58am

I see I was unclear, Bill.

I'm not asking, all at once, why all of existence exists.

I'm asking, for each particular thing that does exist, why that thing exists. And I'm asking for each particular thing that exists. Starting at the familiar and working my way down.

So: why do electrons, protons, and the other "elementary" particles exist? What thing or things caused them to exist?

Philosophers who ask these sort of questions usually invoke one or another form of the "Principle of Sufficient Reason" (Each thing that exists was caused by another thing to exist); I suspect that you, and Warren, and most visitors here, tend to agree with that principle.

The problem with the principle is: either you have an infinite regress of existents causing one another (I'm fine with that, but for some reason many are not), or you have a circular chain somewhere of causation, or you come at last to an existent that has no cause.

Post 5

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 7:11pm

I see I was unclear, Bill.

I'm not asking, all at once, why all of existence exists.

I'm asking, for each particular thing that does exist, why that thing exists. And I'm asking for each particular thing that exists. Starting at the familiar and working my way down.

So: why do electrons, protons, and the other "elementary" particles exist? What thing or things caused them to exist?

If you're talking about the truly elementary particles - the fundamental constituents of existence or the basic material (whatever it is) that constitutes the various forms of existence - then nothing caused these to exist, because again to say that something caused them to exist implies that they are no longer the elementary particles or the basic stuff of existence, since whatever caused them to exist would then have greater primacy or fundamentality.

Philosophers who ask these sort of questions usually invoke one or another form of the "Principle of Sufficient Reason" (Each thing that exists was caused by another thing to exist); I suspect that you, and Warren, and most visitors here, tend to agree with that principle.

No, I do not, because the "Principle of Sufficient Reason," at least as you've described it, is self-contradictory. Each thing that exists cannot be caused by another thing, because that implies an infinite regress.

The problem with the principle is: either you have an infinite regress of existents causing one another (I'm fine with that, but for some reason many are not)...
I am not, because it is self-contradictory.
... or you have a circular chain somewhere of causation, or you come at last to an existent that has no cause.

Yes, you come to an existent that has no cause, and what is wrong with that? That's exactly what you must have for reality to make sense. Again, causality presupposes existence; existence does not presuppose causality. You must start with existence, not with causality, since to demand a cause for existence (as such) is self-contradictory. If the cause exists it is part of existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing cannot be the cause of something; nothing does not exist.

- Bill

Post 6

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 8:17pm

Bill wrote:
" Yes, you come to an existent that has no cause, and what is wrong with that?"

That's what I say, and then the (other than objectivist) philosophers give me dirty looks. I am actually of the opinion that several things in the universe are uncaused, and several others have causes so diffuse and untraceable that they might as well be truly uncaused.

But earlier you wrote:
"Each thing that exists cannot be caused by another thing, because that implies an infinite regress."

What do you have against infinite regress? I've been trying to battle that particular antipathy for some time now. It's quite widespread, among people that otherwise don't agree on much.

Seriously, what do you (and Warren, if he's still watching) object to in an infinity, either of causes, or of space or time?

Post 7

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 11:01pm

I wrote: "Each thing that exists cannot be caused by another thing, because that implies an infinite regress." Craig replied:

What do you have against infinite regress? I've been trying to battle that particular antipathy for some time now. It's quite widespread, among people that otherwise don't agree on much.

Seriously, what do you (and Warren, if he's still watching) object to in an infinity, either of causes, or of space or time?

The problem with an infinite regress of causes is that it is generated by a contradiction. So, you say that every thing must have a cause, which means that everything is the effect of something else. But everything cannot be the effect of something else, because you cannot have something else in addition to everything. Everything is all that exists; hence the contradiction. The infinite regress comes from tracing out the implications of the contradiction: Viz., everything has a cause; since the cause is something, it too must have a cause, and since its cause is something, it too must have cause, etc., ad infinitum. The only way to resolve the regress is to recognize that a cause requires an existent; an existent (as such) does not require a cause.

As for other kinds of infinity: The universe (defined as everything that exists) cannot be spatially infinite, because in order for a three-dimensional object to exist, it must be something specific, which means that it must have a specific size and shape, and therefore be limited in the extent of its dimensions. By the same token, the number of existents, however you define "existent," also cannot be infinite, because whatever the number is, it must be some specific number, however large.

Nor can the universe be temporally infinite, because time depends on motion, and motion involves a relationship between at least two objects. Therefore, since motion cannot apply to the universe as a whole, because nothing exists outside the universe, time does not apply to the universe as a whole. Therefore, the universe does not have a temporal duration, and cannot therefore be infinite in time. One could say that the universe is "eternal," if by "eternal," one simply means timeless or outside of time, which is the original meaning of the term.

The series of natural numbers is potentially infinite in the sense that however far you count, there is no metaphysical limitation on counting further. But no arithmetical series is actually infinite, because however far you count, you will always be at some finite number.

- Bill

Post 8

Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 3:30pm

Nor can the universe be temporally infinite, because time depends on motion, and motion involves a relationship between at least two objects. Therefore, since motion cannot apply to the universe as a whole, because nothing exists outside the universe, time does not apply to the universe as a whole. Therefore, the universe does not have a temporal duration, and cannot therefore be infinite in time. One could say that the universe is "eternal," if by "eternal," one simply means timeless or outside of time, which is the original meaning of the term.

False conclusions - as if Universe be a clock winding down..... the universe is in and of its nature Dynamic, therefore is itself the perpetual motion [no 'outside' reference needed], and in that manner motion is indeed applied to the universe, and time be infinite, as there be no end to the durating of the dynamics, only within 'sections' of it......

Post 9

Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 5:19pm

Craig,

===========
"Why" can also mean "by what cause"?
===========

But that's what "how" means, not what "why" means. It's more mentally clear to have "how" and "why" mean totally different things -- instead of, sometimes, to mean exactly the same thing.

Ed

Post 10

Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 6:39pm